040797 CC WS AgP
'\oj
..
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
MONDA Y, APRIL 7, 1997
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 P.M.
A G .E N D A
1 . CONVENE WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Review Agenda
fM .0
~ .i
2. DISCUSSION ON 1997.2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
A. Municipal Water System
B . Parks and Trails
C. Storm Water
D. Sanitary Sewer
3. ADJOURN
.
r I
.,
.-.
~
;
\~ '.;
~..
. -
. :~
.,
.
To:
~/
From:
Mayor and City Council
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
Date:
April 4, 1997
Re:
Background Material for City Water System Discussion
As a result of my review of a box full of files and materials, I have pulled together the
attached historical information for your review and preparation for Monday evening's work
session on the municipal water system. The material goes back as far as 1984. Included
are. only portions of various reports.
I would be happy to spend time with the Council on an individual basis or even at the work
session itself briefly going through all of the files. You may certainly find other
information in the files of interest.
Staff will of course be present for a presentation and policy discussion. I have also talked
with Jim Pisula about the possibility of himself or another representative from the Planning
Commission attending to discuss the Planning Commission's historical position on a water
system in Shorewood.
Keep in mind this work session is intended to be the first in a series. Let us know at that
meeting what further information you feel you need for continued reconsideration of policy
questions.
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood · cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMO
TO:
.
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Dahlberg
Councilmembers Garfunkel, McCarty, O'Neill & Stover
/-, h"
AI Rolek { )/"---
April 3, 1997
Water Fund Projection Scenarios
We have prepared a number of cash flow projections for the Water Fund under different
scenarios in addition to the original projection prepared last year. The projections were
prepared using assumptions suggested by Mayor Dahlberg in December, 1996. Because of
the differences and complexities between each of the six scenarios (original plus 5 new
scenarios), to avoid any confusion, we will hand out and explain the scenarios at the CIP
meeting on Monday night.
.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
When does the assessment need to be paid?
Initial projects were assessed at $5,000 over a 15 year period with interest on the unpaid balance.
This becomes part of your annual property tax bill. Interest rates charged can be below market rate
due to the tax exempt nature of municipal bonds. Early projects were charged a rate of 7%. Rates
can vary from year to year due to market factors. Affected parties will have 30 days to pay the
assessment up front without interest should they so choose. Persons for whom the assessment is a
fmancial hardship may be eligible for a deferment of the assessment.
Is it mandatory that I hook up to watermain once it is installed?
Single family units are not required to hook up to the municipal water system. Commercial and
multi-family units must connect within 90 days of receipt of notice from the City.
6 . Are there any other costs associated with hooking up to the municipal water
system?
.
4.
.
5.
9/96
QUESTIONS OFTEN ASKED ABOUT W ATERMAIN
INSTALLATION PROJECTS IN THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SEPTEMBER, 1996
1 . How do I find out when water is scheduled to be
installed in my street?
Call or stop in at City Hall and ask. The City has a water
plan which schedules watermain installation over a 20 year
period. The initial 5 year schedule has been printed in the
City newsletter and was the subject of a series of
neighborhood public information meetings in early spring
of 1996.
2.
How is a watermain installation project paid for?
Because of many factors, such as pipe size and location, soil type, street design, and bidding
market conditions, costs can vary greatly from project to project. The City of Shorewood
estimates about two-thirds of the cost of an "average" project will be covered through special
assessments to currently existing lots along the project. The remainder will come from trunk
charges to future lots, and water utility revenues.
3.
Who pays?
Owners of current single family lots of record abutting the main to be installed will be assessed
$5,000 in 1996. Residential lots that are created in the future will receive that assessment plus a
$5,000 trunk charge. Assessments and charges for lots other than single family lots are treated
differently. Call City Hall for details. In future years these rates can increase due to inflation or
extraordinarily high project costs.
Yes. Assessments and charges previously discussed cover the cost of bringing watermain to your
property line. The cost of providing water service from the right-of-way line to your house is the
responsibility of the owner. The homeowner is responsible for obtaining their own contractor to
complete the extension from the right-of-way line to the house itself. In addition, there is a $200
charge paid to City Hall which includes water meter, plumbing permit, and all other appurtenances.
Over
..
7 . Do you have a list of suitable contractors that are available to install water
service?
The City does not recommend contractors. To obtain a bid for installation youcan call a licensed
plumber and request an estimate (check the yellow pages for names and phone numbers). Like all
major house projects, at least two bid estimates would be recommended.
8. How will I know where to put my water"service and when to hook up?
City field representatives will send a letter notifying you that a survey stake has been placed at the
property line indicating an appropriate location to bring water to your honse. If you would like the
service placed in a different location, call the telephone number given to you on that letter. A field
representative will meet with you at your property to discuss the location of your service.
9 . Will my homeowners insurance be reduced when municipal water is available?
This depends on the insurance company. Once water is available you should check with your
insurance agent.
10.
What is a typical water bill?
A typical quarterly water bill will range from $40 to $55 and will vary from season to season. It is
generally less in the winter and more in the summer, when more water is used outside.
.
11. What is the quality of municipal water? Will I need a water softener?
The water originating from the City of Shorewood wells averages a total hardness which varies
between 15 grains/gallon to 24 grains/gallon of total hardness. Most residents may chose to keep a
water softener on line.
12. Can I continue to use my existing well?
Private wells may be constructed or maintained and continued in use whether or not connection is
made to the municipal water system. Wells kept operation after the property is hooked up to the
municipal water system are not allowed to provide an interconnection between the municipal water
system and the private well system. The City does not prohibit repair of private wells. If a
homeowner abandons a well, State Department of Health requirements must be followed. .'
Please feel free to call or stop in at City Hall with further questions. A chart is
available at City Hall which explains the various steps in the process involved with
special assessments.
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
(612) 474-3236
9/96
I. INTRODUcnON
In June 1995, a water distribution system model and evaluation report was
prepared by OSM & Associates, Inc., to provide an update to the comprehensive
water study reports developed in 1984 and 1990. These reports identified a
comprehensive water distribution system to provide a safe, reliable source of
water to all of Shorewood's residents. The purpose of this report is to identify
how to best implement the various segments of the proposed water distribution
system. Several criteria were identified to aid in prioritizing these segments. They
are:
. Alleviates low pressure in an existing area.
· Increases fire flow capacity.
.
Existing and future use demands are met.
. Cost-effective in consideration of potential assessment,. trunk, and user
revenues.
· Can be done concurrently with street reconstruction.
Resident request for City water.
These prioritization criteria, along with the guidelines established in the
comprehensive plan, are the basis for the twenty-year schedule for completing the
citywide water distrIbution system proposed in this report.
,. 4t
"
.
II. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PHASING
The plan is divided into three primary phases. The three primary phases consist .
of two five-year segments followed by one ten-year segment over the years 1996
through 2015. The phasing periods provide for expansion of the existing water
distribution system by connecting the existing isolated systems, while connecting
an optimal number of system users, coordinating projected street restoration and
reconstruction schedules, satisfying prioritization criteria, and localizing
construction areas to increase phase feasibility.
A phase summary in spreadsheet format illustrates a detailed schedule of water
system expansion by year for each phase, and a color coded map is included
showing the system expansion. The phase summary spreadsheet and map is
located at the end of this system phasing section. The spreadsheet contains
information including segment prioritization by year, the code identifying the
driving force for segment implementation (first phase only), segment length,
OSM Project No. 5572.08
Page iii
f
j
.
1
Ie
l
I.
t
'I
~-,
projected assessment funds available, and cost estimates illustrating watermain
costs, street restoration costs, and street reconstruction for local and MSA streets.
Street restoration includes patching the existing street during watermain
construction, and street reconstruction includes rebuilding the entire street from
the subgrade to driving surface. The spreadsheet column titled "Total Amount"
includes estimated costs for watermain construction and street restoration. Local
street and MSA street reconstruction estimates are included in the spreadsheet
as a comparative illustration. The column indicated for watermain costs can be
added to the street restoration or local/MSA street reconstruction, as applicable,
to provide the City options for construction financing.
The first phase of implementation begins in 1996 and extends through the year
2000. The primary goal of this phase is to provide interconnections between the
Badger field and Boulder Bridge systems in the western half of the City, and the
Amesbury and SilvelWood systems in the northeastern and southeastern areas of
the City. Lateral expansion from the trunk extensions are incorporated to
provide a looped system, with future lateral extensions added over the next two
phases of the plan within each looped area.
The second phase covering the years 2001 through 2005, completes a looped
distribution system in the western half of the City and provides for lateral
extension within these looped areas. Work in the northeast area extends the
Amesbury distrIbution system from the Amesbury development west to the City
boundary with Greenwood and south to T.R. 7, leaving a few segment areas east
of Amesbury for expansion in the next phase.
Extension of the distnbution system between the western and eastern half of the
City is scheduled to begin in the last two years of the second phase. This
segment expansion includes areas south of Galpin Lake and west of Christmas
Lake. System improvements to this area will give the City the ability to close the
interconnection with the City of Excelsior at Grant Street.
Phase three is scheduled over a ten year period between 2006 and 2015 in order
to assist financing and to provide options for future alterations of the schedule.
The primary goal of the third phase is to complete connection of the eastern and
western water distribution systems. This connection is scheduled to take place
between the years 2008 and 2009, and will give the City an option to abandon the
well north of Christmas Lake and west of Lake Como. The years between 2006
and 2008 are primarily intended to expand the lateral system to areas directly
south and west of the Excelsior City limits. The last five years of this third phase
are intended to complete lateral extensions to any remaining areas including
areas with private roads.
OSM Project No. 5572.08
Page iv
The projected phasing schedule is designed to be somewhat flexible to allow for
modifications that will complement financing, provide water service for residents
requesting service, and to provide service to areas with deteriorating private wells.
GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATIONS AND SPREADSHEETS (see following sheets)
-
-
.
OSM Project No. 5572.08
Page v
.
.
III. FINANCING
Expansion of the water distribution system will be financed through assessments,
trunk charges, and water user fees. Local street reconstruction funds and MSA
street reconstruction funds will be used to reconstruct streets as conditions
warrant in conjunction with the expansion of the water system. This will reduce
the impact of restoring street with water fund resources.
The twenty year plan for implementation is estimated to cost between $14 million
and $15 million, based on 1995 price levels with restoration of existing streets
used for estimating purposes. Restoration of existing streets consists of patching
the pavement areas disturbed by construction activities, along with the re-
establishment of turf.
IV.
SUMMARY
The Water Distribution System Implementation Plan provides for expansion of
the water system over a twenty-year period in three phases. The plan is designed
to satisfy local prioritization criteria, street reconstruction scheduling, and
comprehensive plan requirements. The plan is flexible to account for available
assessment funds, development, and City project funding needs. The plan phasing
includes estimated costs for existing street restoration, local street reconstruction,
and MSA street reconstruction in conjunction with watermain construction to
provide the City with funding resource options.
OSM Project No. 5572.08
Page vi
"
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE
1995
.
~
.
~I """ ~ ~ ~ TR--"" ~\~\ 'V' 0. rfll r-~
t! \ I: ;! .r/ \ \ i', !,. \ \ \ 1/' .
'. '." 'I; :! (( \ \ ;) ) L-4 \ 'fA 1\ ,I ( \ L \ I I )
" ....... , = , . ! I -;/ ...-..! \ \ I. \ II '~ I ) \ \ l '
....... '\ " ii' 1" i' \ \t. V.' . I I I i
\ I. . . I j. !,,, . It. f . .
k~/ .La .L!.. \~/ ..!J. \,~ I LA V V \L?/ \,.'~ J l...!/
~, /7 ""i7' "'\, "'7' "\.\. 'V" i C~ rr'" ~"11 ,; 1'\
;;', ;~ ii' I~, il 1/\" Ii i 1\ \I {'f " \ Ii · I.^
12\ \ II' J I i I.' H 'I'". 11 .' . \ i I /I \ \
1j \Vl!! ! i f\"~i :,1,' \'~~JI _! D ~ \\ ij . I fP.\
~\j~~ ''\1 ~ \j i ~./ ~ L!a. ~
..
Community
Facilities/Services
Issues
.
.
9/93
Sanitary Sewer Virtually the entire community is served
by the municipal sewer system, or has sanitary sewer
availability. With minor exceptions future extensions to the
system will be paid for by private development. Capacity
issues raised in the past have been resolved.
Recent drastic rate increases by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission reinforce the need to control inflow and
infiltration into the existing system. Consequently, repair
and ~outine maintenance of the system will be a priority in
commg years.
Water System The City water system has a history of
being in a tenuous financial position. This is largely due to
the system consisting of five separate "subsystems", some
of which are under-utilized. During the 1980's the water
fund ran at a deficit which, at its worst, totaled $243,000.
Even with the number of users being added onto the system
and with the addition of the most efficient system in the
southeast area, the water fund was in a deficit position of
approximately $186,000 at the end of 1993. Projections
show that even with modest growth in users and significant
increases in water rates, the water fund deficit will continue
and will actually grow.
It needs to be noted, however, that this accounting includes
depreciation for system replacement as is normally done. On
a cash basis, at the end of 1993, the fund had a balance of
about $217,000. Using this accounting method all system
replacement items will need to be paid for by special
assessments.
Aside from financial considerations, certain physical
deficiencies exist within the five individual systems:
Amesbury - This system consists of two wells serving 146
residential units. Without a backup source, the system is
near or at capacity. mterconnection to the southeast area
system is viewed as an important objective.
Southeast Area - Having elevated storage and a water
treatment plant, this system is considered to be complete. It
currently serves 366 properties and has been extended north,
across Highway 7 to Excelsior Boulevard. Connected to the
Amesbury system, the system should have capacity to serve
the east end of the community.
CF-5
W oodhaven - Despite serving only 20 properties, the extension of this system is not
advisable due to the single well and lack of a backup source. The City should continue to
explore the possibility of an interconnection with Excelsior or Chanhassen to enhance the
reliability of the system.
Badger - This system serves 47 residential units, plus City Hall and one commercial
property on County Road 19. It is interconnected to the Tonka Bay water system which
has water treatment and elevated storage. Talk continues about Tonka Bay taking over this
system. If it proves to be feasible, the system should be studied to determine to what
extent it can be expanded. If such an arrangement is not feasible, at minimum,
consideration should be given to automating the valve between the two systems for fire
fighting purposes.
Boulder Bridge - This system is geographically positioned to serve some of the larger
remaining parcels on the west end of Shorewood. A proposed development of twenty-four
lots on one of those parcels, however, may use up the remaining capacity of the system.
Any further extension of this system should be made only after detailed engineering
analysis determines the feasibility. The capacity study to be conducted should identify any
improvements which could be made to this system to add capacity. One hundred and forty- e..
four residents currently use this system.
Stormwater Management While new development in recent years has been required to address
stormwater runoff, many older parts of the community experience drainage problems. The City
has recently adopted a program for funding stormwater management projects.
fu the past attention has been paid primarily to the quantity of stormwater runoff. Environmental
concerns dictate that future stormwater management also address the quality of stormwater runoff.
Parks and Recreation Having acquired most of the land identified as being needed for a park
system, considerable planning has gone into the development of various parks. Master plans exist
for all of the parks in Shorewood and the City has adopted a trail plan for the community. The
challenge for the future is to finance proposed park and trail improvements.
Public Safety Sharing police and fire services with other South Lake Minnetonka communities
has proven to be effective and economical, and Shorewood remains committed to these joint use .
efforts.
Solid Waste Shorewood began its recycling efforts in 1990 and has experienced a relatively
high rate of participation from residents. fu addition to increased collection, future efforts should
be made to use recycled products.
As mentioned in the Transportation Chapter, refuse collection has been identified as contributing to
the deterioration of City streets. Garbage trucks, while providing an essential service, are among
the heaviest vehicles on the road. fu light of increasing street repair costs, the City must examine
ways to control the number and size of these trucks.
Natural Gas, Electrical and Cable Television Services These semipublic utility services
are available throughout most of Shorewood. Shorewood's participation in the "Gopher State
One-Call" program has enhanced communication between the City, private contractors and the
utility companies relative to construction projects. Refinement of permitting procedures and a
program to bury existing overhead utilities are viewed as future issues to be addressed.
9/93
CF-6
.
.
In addition to reducing III, the City needs to establish a routine sewer maintenance program.
Manholes should be inspected on a periodic basis and sewers should be flushed at minimum once
every three years.
The City requires that all new development connect to the sanitary sewer system. Although new
on-site septic systems are prohibited, a small number of systems remain in existence. These
systems should be identified and, where feasible, required to connect. Regulations to this effect
already exist within the City Code.
Remaining new segments of the municipal system will be constructed and paid for as part of
. private development projects. Gravity sewer is to be encouraged, while lift stations are to be
allowed only when gravity service is technically and economically not feasible.
NOTE: Additional technical information as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act is
contained in the Appendix of this Plan.
Municipal Water
Shorewood's municipal water system consists of five separate systems as shown on the following
page. Approximately 35 percent of the households in Shorewood are connected to the system. In
1984 the City prepared a Comprehensive Water Study to serve as a guide for the development of
an overall system. The Study was updated in 1990, at which time the City considered extending
water throughout the community over a three-year period. Based upon a survey and public
meetings conducted in 1991, the City Council determined that the majority of Shorewood residents
did not support such an aggressive approach to the construction of a city-wide system.
Since then the City has explored the possibility of selling or turning over to other cities parts of the
system which operate at a deficit, particularly the Badger and Woodhaven systems. While
discussions continue with Tonka Bay regarding the Badger system, it appears that this alternative
is not financially feasible for the W oodhaven system. Consequently, the direction at this time is to
concentrate on making the existing system as reliable and fmancially viable as possible by
increasing the number of users on the system. The City must identify how the system should be
upgraded and the extent to which it can be expanded over a reasonable period of time.
It is important to review the City's current policies on water system expansion.
1 . Anyone can get water from any available source (i.e. private wells, small centralized
systems, connection to adjoining community system, connection to an existing Shorewood
system or extension of an existing Shorewood system).
2. With the exception of commercial (nonresidential) and multiple-family residential
properties, no one will be required to connect to, or pay for, City water.
3. Anyone may extend and connect to City water, provided those who want it are willing to
pay 100 percent of the cost.
4. Unless previously assessed, properties connecting to the existing system must pay a
connection charge (currently $4000). Credit is allowed (currently up to $2000) where
trunk or lateral lines must be extended.
While these policies have served adequately for new development, they have presented problems
when applied to requests for extensions to existing residential areas. For example, if in a
neighborhood of 12 homes, three property owners oppose the extension, the remaining nine
property owners must pay the total cost of the project. The other three pay a connection fee to the
CF -16
City at such time as they choose to connect to the system. Policies such as these run counter to
expanding the number of connections to the system.
It is recommended that the City develop a ten-year plan for expansion of the municipal water
system. The plan should be based on the following objectives:
Short Term Objectives
1 . A water system analysis should be undertaken to accurately determine the limits and
capacities of the current independent systems.
2. Provide a reliable source of water for fire suppression in areas where the municipal system
exists.
3 . Enhance the financial viability of the system on the west side of the City, and make that
system more reliable by providing elevated storage capacity.
5.
In that provision of affordable senior housing is a priority goal of the City, municipal water
should be made available to make a senior housing project more viable.
Finance elevated storage on the west end by means of private development connection fees,
use of tax increment financing in conjunction with a senior housing project, and other
funding sources.
.
4.
6. Coordinate municipal state aid and local road improvements with any water main
construction projects. Rebuild roads with water main extensions or with plans to
accommodate water main extension.
Long Range Objectives
1 . All municipal water systems should be interconnected, forming one system to provide
multiple sources of water.
2. Examine ways to realize a multiple jurisdiction water utility district for efficiency purposes.
3.
Establish a depreciation fund to provide for system replacement.
.
4. Provide water service to as many residents as is feasible.
It must be realized that providing water service to the entire city is unrealistic. For example, it is
extremely unlikely that water service would ever be provided to Shady and Enchanted Islands.
Similarly there may be other portions of the city which are so expensive to serve that extensions
would not be made to those areas until well into the future, if ever.
Following is an outline of how a 10-year plan for expansion of the city water system might be
phased.
First Phase (Approximately Three Years)
· Formally adopt a policy that all extensions shall be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Water Study, dated July 1990, and the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi
Board of State Public Health and Environment Managers ("Ten States Standards").
CF-19
.
Prepare an analysis of the existing system to determine the capacity of the five water
systems and establish potential service areas. Order a feasibility study for initial
improvements for the west end of the City.
Evaluate and adopt an assessment policy which:
- Addresses assessment of property as service is provided.
- Determines at what point connection to the system may be required, or as an
alternative, at what point minimum charges begin accruing.
- Budgets for capital improvements in the general fund.
- Establishes flat rate assessments on a unit basis (i.e. all lots, regardless of size, pay
the same assessment).
.
. Establish impact fees for developments where extension of the system is not imminent.
. Construct a water tower on the Minnewashta Elementary School site. This tower is
necessary to enhance the safety and reliability of the existing system on the west end
and to provide water to new developments.
.
.
Extend water main to new development where feasible. Where water main is not
immediately available consider provisions for future connection, such as dry pipes,
extra right-of-way width, etc..
. Extend water main to low cost, high return areas, that is, where the most properties can
be served with the least amount of pipe.
Second Phase (Approximately Three years)
. Interconnect the west end of the system with the Victoria water system in conjunction
with development of the southernmost parcel in Shorewood east of Smithtown Road.
. Extend water main to connect the Amesbury system to the southeast area system.
. Extend water main to connect the Boulder Bridge system to the Badger system.
.
. Continue extending water main to low cost, high return areas.
. Identify low feasibility areas where costs are high relative to the number of potential
users.
Third Phase (Approximately Four Years or More)
. Extend water main, as is economically feasible, to residential areas not served in the
first two phases.
. Construct west end water treatment as needed.
. Upon financial stability of water fund, extend water to higher cost, low return areas.
It should be noted that water main extensions will be made upon request in all phases of the plan,
based upon feasibility.
CF-20
The City completed construction of a new public works facility in 1992. In addition to a new
garage, a long-awaited salt/sand storage building was added. The new facility has more and better
space for outdoor storage which has been screened from view of nearby residential property.
Although the new garage was designed to be expanded, the facility is considered to be adequate to
serve the City's needs for years into the future.
Recognizing the needs of an increasing elderly population in the south shore communities, the City
continues to explore the possibility of constructing a senior community center. This is not viewed
as something Shorewood can accomplish on its own. While Shorewood has offered the northeast
comer of the Badger Field site as a possible location for the center, construction of the facility can
only occur with the cooperation of other south lake communities. A senior center task force has
been established to coordinate this effort.
Schools
With the exception of the islands, which are located in the Mound School District, the entire City of
Shorewood is located within the Minnetonka School District (276). Population growth in the last
several years has resulted in the need for expanded facilities throughout the District. In
Shorewood, the School District has acquired additional land to increase the size of the .
Minnewashta Elementary School site. The building was also expanded to meet the needs of future
growth. The School District has not identified any additional land or locations for new facilities in
Shorewood. Given the low density of the remaining land inthe community, the need for
additional facilities in the future is considered unlikely.
.
1-93
CF-37
Chapter Summary
.
.
11193
Community facilities and services include lands, buildings,
services and systems which are provided on a public or
semipublic basis. The City's goals in this regard are as
follows:
The City shall provide those basic facilities and
services which ensure the health, safety and
general welfare of the public, the cost of which
facilities and services are most efficiently shared
by the general public.
The efforts of varying government agencies shall
be coordinated to avoid duplication of efforts,
unnecessary expense and improper location of
public facilities.
The City shall establish a basis for developing and
maintaining a sound financial planning program
for capital improvements, relating such
improvements to actual need, proper location and
timing.
Following is a summary of recommendations intended to
achieve these goals.
1 . Develop a plan to provide city water service to the
entire community within 10 years.
2. Promote and increase the provision of facilities and
services on a joint-use basis between units of
government.
3.
Continue to identify problem areas of the sanitary
sewer system for televising, sealing and repair.
Establish a sewer maintenance program including
manhole inspection and sewer flushing on a three
year cycle.
Allow sanitary sewer lift stations only when gravity
service is not technically and economically feasible.
Reevaluate current city water policies.
Determine the capacity of each of the five municipal.
water systems.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Program the following water system improvements:
CF-39
.~ ....
.
Interconnect the Amesbury and Southeast Area systems.
Interconnect the W oodhaven system with Excelsior or Chanhassen.
.
.
Ask Tonka Bay to take over the Badger system or, at least, automate the value between
the Badger and Tonka Bay systems.
Identify improvements to the Boulder Bridge system which could increase its existing
. capacity.
9. Water extensions must be consistent with Shorewood's Comprehensive Water Study,
dated July 1990 and the "Ten States Standards".
.
10. Prioritize small drainage projects based on: I) public safety and health; 2) substantial
financial impact to the City; 3) public nuisance; and 4) private nuisance.
II. Finance large drainage projects through special taxing districts based on established
subwatersheds.
12.
.
Stormwater runoff shall be managed based upon the principle that the rate of runoff leaving
a site after development shall not exceed the rate of runoff prior to development.
13. Focus future park planning on the development of existing sites rather than on acquisition
of land.
14. Consider expansion of Freeman Park if fmancially supported by local athletic
organizations.
IS. Continue to coordinate recreational programs with other communities through the
Minnetonka School District.
16. Continue to provide police protection through the existing four-city joint powers
agreement.
17. Continue to contract for fire protection through the Excelsior and Mound fire departments.
18.
Install one to three dry fire hydrants to enhance fire protection on Enchanted Island and
Shady Island.
.
19. Establish four to six refuse collection districts within the community, awarding contracts to
low-bidding private haulers.
20. Require all new development to place all utilities underground and establish a program to
eliminate overhead wiring over the next 10 to 15 years.
21. Provide street lighting only where consistent with adopted City policy.
22. Include expansion of the City Council Chambers in the Capital Improvements Plan.
23. Continue to work with other south shore communities to provide a community center for
senior citizens.
11193 CF-40
I
I
! .
I
I
a
I
I
.~
I
..
I
I
I
I.
I
]
I
I
J
I
I
~b 11c- CDP'!
research Quik Do ~'b+ KE"J/1.0 u5
A STUDY
OF
THE SUPPORT OF SHOREWOOD
. PROPERTY OWNERS
FOR
A PROPOSED CITY-WIDE
WATER SYSTEM
PREPARED FOR:
THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
NOVEMBER 21 , 1991
J! t1 ~. i..4( r :" 11 ./i ~; iJ J H' ( ;. ;- !f;" J~ j. (' lr t 11 jf bItS i 'jJ C s .:- ( S
J
I
J
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
~
~
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
r"_".;:::'~: Quik . >:">"::""::'. .\1:'1';~',(l',:
- -==================
26. Tell me which one of these income categories best describes your total
household income before taxes for 1990.
Questions 28 through 30 relate to geographic zones within Shorewood where
the interview candidate lived. (See Map at end of Appendices.)
Geographic Zone Taxoayer %
Zone 1 24 12.0
Zone 2 16 8.0
Zone 3 10 5.0
Zone 4 4 2.0
Zone 5 27 13.5
Zone 6 22 11.0
Zone 7 24 12.0
Zone 8 9 4.5 .
Zone 9 18 9.0
Zone 10 46 23.0
TOTAL 200 100.0
31 . There is one other issue on which City Council members would like you
to express your opinion. Please tell me whether you currently support or
oppose the use of the walking and biking trail in Shorewood by
snowmobiles in the winter time?
t
j
Taxoayer %
Support 75 37.5
Oppose 108 54.0
No ooinionlneutral 17 8.5
TOTAL 200 100.0
1 1
...-.
....
.......
.....
...
.....
-.
-.
........,
-.
.....
...
-.
I:liIliI
...
..
..
....
-.'
The City of Shorewood
~ater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 11
upport/Oppose Questiohs Total current water system Have you made a major lehgth of Shorewood residehcy
Investment Ih your well?
City water ~ell system Not recehtly Wlthlh 5 y.ars 10 years or Over 10 Yellrs
less
otal number of respondents 200 59 141 98 43 105 95
100.0X 29.5% 70.5% 69.5% 30.5% 52.5% 47.5X
lverall support/oppose centralized water system
;upport 43.5" ", nYo .v, :!~ 37.TX 1.1..7): 56.7'!! ~?f~'!!
Jppose 54.0" 37.3X 61. 0% 65.3% 51.2% 41.9X 67.4%
~o opinion/neutral 2.5X 1.7% 2.8" 2.0% 4.7% 1. 9X 3.2X
Strength of overall support/opposition
Strongly support 18.9" 27.6X 15.2X 11. 5X 23.8% 24.3X 12.9X
Somewhat support 22.4" 25.9X 21.0X 20.8X 21.4% 29.1% 15.'"
Somewhat oppose 16.3" 17.2% 15.9% 17.7% 11.9% 14.6% 18.3X
Stron!lly oppose 42.3" 29.3" 47.8% 50.0% 42.9% 32.0% 53.8%
Use of walking/biking trails for snowmobiling in winter
Support 37.5% 30.5% 40.4% 42.9X 34.9X 32.4% 43.2%
Oppose 54.0" 66.1% 48.9% 46.9% 53.5% 61.0% 46.3"
No opinion/neutral 8.5% 3.4% 10.6X 10.2% 11.6% 6.7% 10.5%
.
.
research Quik, 11/91
. The City of Shorew~
ater System Researc'
. 1991
.
research Qutk, '1/91
.
.
..._._.~,._-...~
MOUNO
.:a,.."II.... """"', I
~
-..'::.
-==:=- ~
- --s:: f.I
. , -.;::;- sa :1
',M. e!!ff !i
"':~"S ~
. EE!E J
irl
,~
~
~1
'~l
I
I
1
I
...... l'
-
---
I
I
~ .
II
.
.';T
:2;
~
:.a
.~
~~
--r~,. _
~~~[I~~~~.,
-
J
I
.1
~AP OF
SHOREWOOD
HE:~I~ ~~~~~II
= I~~"~Q'
~~-sf
..
1',
SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS
ARE COLORED YELLOW
'=
.~....
--:'1-"-
i
'/
ORONO
,-=..
'.SIf.... 0"_ #t -= ~
t..._ '.~" =Sorar '=
':...-.w ca...... CIA ffJ Illu4 E
-=- . ::! gEE
_ -~ c ~!
",~,""":::= ~~ ::=
J ...""==- , -:;::-
.;JulpS
"r
l..:1i, Minne/aM'
UPPU !.#.t"
f&..~:,^,,,
.~~~ .
~~'.-
--
'(";~~~~~~::C?;~-~'--"'--"~~---~":;~"':~.....~',.!l!~~~~"~~'7'!!'''~";"~:~'_~
,~,,"~,,-."~;"r ;~,-"'#~",-~....~..;o:""'!":o:'''';'':-''''[]..='''="''"'''''..,!l. !\._'~';'" ...,.~~.---~_~.....~......_.....~.
researchQuik
September 23, 1991
Jim Hurm, City Administrator
The City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Jim:
This letter is to document our discussions about a possible research study of the
citizens of Shorewood to ascertain their understanding of and. support for a new
water system for the City. In order to help the Council react to this research
proposal, I have outlined some key elements to the proposal in this letter. If you
would like a more detailed proposal, please let me know. I would also be
. happy to speak with the Council about the proposal to explain aspects of it.
The proposal has three parts:
· Goals for the study
Activities to be included in the study
Costs and Payment for the study.
In addition, I have designed this letter so that it could be used as a
Memorandum Of Understanding. If the Council should find that this proposal,
as outlined, would meet their needs, a representative of the City should sign the
designated place and a copy should be returned to me.
Goals for the Study:
.
Ascertain the reactions of random sample of property and home
owners to the proposed water system changes as outlined in an
educational packet and as discussed in the local media.
Determine the major differences between those property and
home owners who are most likely to support a new system and
those who are most likely to support any other alternative.
Possible differences to be explored include but are not limited to:
Current system user and current non-user
More affluent and less affluent property owners
Long time residents compared to newer residents
Discover the major pros and cons of the new system, from the
citizens' point of view.
tr t' ,,~
II
rcscarchQuik ~ linnc~lp( llis, ~ 1 inncsoLl
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
Provide timely feedback to the City following the distribution of
educational materials about the new system by completing
research before a public hearing which is scheduled 13 days later.
Activities Included in the Study:
.
.
Preparation:
Meetings with Council and key City staff to determine issues
of greatest interest for inclusion in the survey.
.
Discussion of sampling issues and screening issues Le. is
the research a random sample or are citizens screened for
inclusion in the study
(Recommendation: random sample of 200 citizens (not
households) with each name contacted 5 times before
replacement and every adult in the household interviewed.
The sample of 200 permits some reliable analyses of
smaller subsamples such as all the property owners who
are currently hooked up to City water.)
A draft of the interview is composed for review by Council
and key City staff. Interview pilot tested on sample of 10
property and home owners.
Final draft of interview revised and approved by Council
and staff.
.
.
Interviewing:
.
.
The City of Shorewood mails out a flyer or letter to all
citizens explaining that our research firm may be contacting
them, encouraging their participation.
The City of Shorewood furnishes Research Quik with a
listing of all Shorewood citizens and their telephone
numbers. If numbers are unlisted, Shorewood mails
notices to all unlisted numbers drawn for the sample,
asking them to return a postage paid response form with
their telephone number on it so they can be included in the
survey.
The sample is selected and a master list is made using a
random starting point in the Shorewood list and an nth
number system.
.
.
?
. .
II
The City of Shorewood
rcsearchQuik Minneapolis, ,\linncso(.l Water System Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
.
.
.
The screening questions for the interview are agreed upon
and will probably include but are not limited to:
.
Selecting only householders and businesses which
own property in Shorewood, not renters. .
Determining if the interviewee has reviewed any
written material on this topic and remailing them
new packets before interviewing them, if they have
not.
.
The telephone interviewers are trained based on pilot test
results to deal with special issues related to this study. Any
questions which interview candidates might ask
interviewers, and which are specific to the issue, will have
written answers developed. These answers are reviewed
and approved by City staff prior to the study.
Phone calling begins on October 24 and continues until
completed but not sooner than November 2nd. Interviews
are not longer than ten minutes each, on the average, and
do not include more than 5 open-ended questions.
Analysis and Reporting:
.
.
Interviews are pre-coded for data entry. Data entry is
completed (verified entry - double entry). The first report of
frequency distributions is ready by November 4 - this may
be in draft form due to the short turn-around time.
.
Research Quik furnishes the City a record of the number of
households contacted, the number of refusals, bad phone
numbers, disconnected phones, no answers and so on.
The summary findings are reviewed in at least one but no
more than two sessions with the City Council and selected
staff. Other analyses are conducted as requested. Key
points for inclusion in a summary report are discussed and
the Council/staff suggest a report outline.
A report is drafted for review by Council and staff.
Revisions are suggested and the draft is finalized.
A camera ready copy of the final report and a bound copy of
the report is given to the City of Shorewood for storage and
duplication.
.
:i
4." "'-:-
.
The City of Shorewood
researchQuik Minneapolis, ,\lil1l1esotaWater System Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
Costs and Payment:
Research Quik, Inc. can complete this study as specified in this brief working
paper for $3,300 plus local mileage expenses. The study charges may be paid
over three months with $1100. due immediately upon acceptance of this
proposal and the next two payments of $1100 due on November 1 and
December 1. Any changes in this work plan will result in a change in costs.
Jim, we are delighted that you thought to call us for an estimate on this very
interesting project and we thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Please
feel free to suggest any revisions you would like to make to this project.
Sincerely,
1t1~
rShik, President
.
The City of Shorewood accepts this project proposal and the project charge as
outlined in this letter.
s&1If.~ {jk4~{{J
T E ' '......
I
.
Signed by: Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
, A representative of the City
4
.
.
- .
/] .... .,\
XI. .'. I ~,
l ,\ .~' ".,
.../ /./'
../
m
rcsc~m:hQuik ~!illncapolis, ,\!inncsor.1The City ot Shorewood
Water System Research--October, 1991
)
,~- i.
. ,
Data Table 1
..,.
I
Questions 1, 2, and 3
Resident Responses
200 100.0"
194 97.0"
2 1.0%
2 1.0"
2 1.0%
93 46.5%
16 8.0%
91 45.5%
59 29.5%
141 70.5%
Total number of respondents
OWn and pay taxes on property in Shorewoocl
Residential
Undeveloped property
Both business and residential property
Both residential and undeveloped lot
Read about water system changes in past 2 weeks
Read packet from city
Read newspaper
Read packet and newspaper
CUrrent water system
Ci ty water
lieU system
:'"'!S.e3rc~ ':Ul~. ~ /'j~
II
resl.:an.:hQuik .\!il1lll.:apolis. .\!illl1l.:sora The City ot Shorewood
Water System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 2
Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7
Resident Responses
Total number of respondents
200
100.0%
Total respondents--well questions
141
70 .S%
Ever been connected to a city water system
Yes, within Shorewoocl
Yes, in another city
No
1
105
35
.7%
74.5%
24.8%
Annual cost for well system (average)
117
1395
How cost comapares to prev; ous years
About average
Higher than average
Lower than average
112"
19
5
82.4%
14.0%
3.7%
.
Have you made a major investment in your well?
No, never
Yes
75
66
53.2%
46.8%
Year made the investment
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1983
1982
Before 1982
8
5
9
8
8
5
4
3
3
13
12.1%
7.6%
13.6%
12.1"
12.1"
7.6%
6.1"
4.5"
4.S"
19.7%
.
Amount of investment (average)
64
S1,662
~=sear~:'! .-;t..: i::: .
11
n:searl:hQuik .\lilllle.lpolis, .\lillnesora The City of Shorewood
Water System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 3
Total number of respondents
Resident Responses
200 100.0%
141 70.5%
127 16.0
34 24.5%
105 75.5%
9 11.5%
8 10.3%
14 17.9%
7 9.0%
a 10.3%
8 10.3%
5 6.4%
2 2.6%
2 2.6%
10 12.8%
5 6.4%
71 73.2%
11 11.3%
11 11.3%
1 1.0%
1 1.0%
1 1.0%
1 1.0%
Questions 8 and 9
Total respondents'.well questions
Age of well (average number of years)
Ever had well tested fa.. puri ty1
No
Yes
.
Yea.. tesed
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1983
1982
Befo..e 1982
I don't know
.
Test results
Fine, OK, etc.
Excellent, outstanding, etc.
High iron content
Requf..es chlo..ine treatment
. High minerals
High minerals but good
9
iesear~h Qui~. ji/C~
II
n,:sl..";ln:hQuik :\ linlll.:apolis, .\linllt.:Sllr}he Ci ty of Shorewood
Yater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 4
Questions 10, 11, and 12
Resident Responses
200 100.OX
185 92.5%
77 38.5%
11 5.5%
12 6.OX
102 51.OX
66 33.OX
16 8.OX
16 8.OX
120 6O.OX
62 31.OX
11 5.5%
7 3.5%
6 33 .3%
5 27.ax
3 16.7X
3 16.7X
1 5.6%
Total number of respondents
CUrrent water treatment (may Indicate more than one)
Treat water to sotten
Treat water to remove iron
Treat water for other purpose
Do not treat water
Satisfaction with quality of water
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
.
Satisfaction with current water system
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Reason for dissatisfaction of current water system
Somewhat dissatisfied, a lot of work and money
Very dissatisfied, poor water quality due to iron content
Very dissatisfied, problems with hook-ups to city water
Somewhat dissatisfied, systems getting old/water pressure
Very dissatisfied, the whole setup is a joke in Shorewood
.
research Quile, 11/91
.
.'
m
n:sc;ln.:hQuik .\ lillIlCJroliS, ,\lillllI.."Sllr.l The Ci ty of Shorewood
Water System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 5
Questions 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
Resident Responses
Total number of respondents
200
100.0%
Capital investment in a new city water system
Support
Oppose
No opinion/neutral
69
120
11
34.5%
60.0%
5.5%
Five.. year conversion period frClll wells to city water
Support
Oppose
No opiniOn/neutral
126
70
4
63.0%
35.0%
2.0%
Assessing a portion of costs to all property owners
Support
Oppose
No opinion/neutral
127
68
5
63.5%
34.0X
2.5X
OVerall support/oppose centralized water system
Support
Oppose
No opinion/neutral
87
108
5
43.5%
54.0X
2.5%
Strength of overall support/opposition
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
37
44
32
83
18.9%
22.4%
16.3%
42.3%
.-' \!)-L \;\
"-~ _'1Ji'\ . )1\
"";.; . __....r~
It)/V
"
:~se3r::.--:~L i ::.. '-~ ..~ ~
II
rc~c;ln.:hQuik .\lillllC;1l1ob. .\[iI111C~"r.1The City of Shorewood
. Yater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 6
Question 19
Resident Responses
Total number of respondents
200
100.OX
Main reason for support/opposition
The high cost of assessment and the system
I have my own system. lIhy should I pay for a new one?
Treat the iron in the water--water quality
City water system is inevitable
Best, for future growth
Malees better sense cityWide than haphazard as it is now
It would help the community financially and fiscally
Taxes are already too high
Best water in Shorewood comes frClll wells
I oppose the assessment--no other reason
Should i~rove the water quality
Should h~ve been done long ago
It is ,important that the City eliminate the deficit
Dissatf~fied with my well
Expect future problems/costs with my well
Financing proposed by the City is unreal istic
COU'lCil malees up their mind without the consent of taxpayers
Spent a lot of money on wells
\le do not have industrial base to support it
Public safety--fires
Shorewood wi l l not do a good job putting in the system
City has no need for system--not dense enough
SUpport as long as those on city water do not pay more
A lot of people camot afford it
Good investment, i~roves resale of my house
, Only if new pol iticians and business managers in the City
38
\later system has been mishandled for past ten years
City council has prClllised us no city water in the past
Better access and control of health hazards
Cost/inconvenience of connecting to the house
\later rates are too high in c~rison to others
Quality of water will not be i~roved by system
Cost to long time residents, new developments now on system
Put it to a referendum
35
36
37
44
41
19
16
13
11
11
9
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22.OX
20.5%
9.5%
8.0%
6.5%
5.5%
5.5%
4.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.0%
3.OX
3.0%
3.0%
2.5%
2.OX
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.S%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.
.
research ~u;:" ~"" ~
.'
.
II
n:sc;ln.:bQuik .\linnc.1plllis. ,\linllcsm}he City of Shorewood
Vater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 7
Question 20
Resident Responses
Total number of respondents
200
100.0%
Changes the City should make in proposed water system
No changes to suggest
\lould rather not see it done
Better explanation of costs of system
lengthen the conveh)~~ time
Avai !able where needed most, keep oUt where not supported
Do not require well owners to switch
Monitor the water qual ity--Federal guidelines
Spread current system deficit over entire tax base
I~rove the water quality
Clean up current system first
Anything that would reduce the costs and i~rove service
Create set-back exemption for seniors
Make allowances for hardship by assessment
Re- irilurse those paying for system now, it is "our" tower
How long will we be inconvenienced?
Reduce the hook up costs
Buy the service from someone else
Get current system users to make up the deficit
Bring the price down
Merge with Excelsior and Chanhassen for economy of scale
I hope I am included in this system
33
34
\lait for a greater population in the city
I will vote against those who vote for it
. All citizens should pay for iron removal
Make those not hooked up pay for it
credi t those who have paid for it but not received it
Get staff and politicians with experience in these areas
Use old equipment/pipes as much as possible for costs
Reduce the assessment to S3500--City finance the rest
\le would li ke to know where the line will go
Everyone should pay the assesment, even current users
Those who i~lement system should get a break
32
35
36
93
22
10
9
8
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
46.5%
11.0%
5.0%
4.5%
4.0%
3.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1. 0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.S%
.5%
.5%
.S%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.5%
"'~s~ar=:;-;-:u ~ ~. :: /?~
(I
n:sl:an:hQuik ~ linlll:.ll,()li~. .\ li:llH.:~()r.l The Ci ty of Shorewood
. Water System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 8
Questions 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25-27 Resident Responses
Total number of respondents 200 100.0%
length of residency (average number of years) 200 13.4
Gender
Female 96 48.2%
Male 103 51.8%
Age of respondent (average nunber of years) 197 47.0
IIuIi:ler of adu l ts living in household
One 20 10.1%
Two lS9 79.9% '.
Three 19 9.5%
Four 1 .5%
Total household income
Over $50,000 139 70.2%
less than $50,000 47 23.7%
I don't know 1 .S%
Refused 11 5.6"
Total household income
less than $20,000 6 3.2%
SZO,OOO to $29,999 9 4.8%
$30,000 to S39,999 16 8.6"
S4Q,000 to $49,999 12 6.4%
$50,000 to S59,999 47 25 .1%
$60,000 to $69,999 13 7.0% .
$70,000 to $79,999 17 9.1%
$80,000 to S89,999 5 2.7%
Over $90,000 50 26.7%
I don't know 1 .S"
Refused 11 5.9%
"'~S~3r::::' '-:uf t~
.
.'
11
rcs\:an:hQuik ,\ lionc3polis, ~linncs(JraThe City of Shorewood
~ater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 9
Questions 28-30 and 31
Resident Responses
200 100.0%
24 12.OX
16 8.0%
10 5.OX
4 2.0%
27 13.5%
22 11.0%
24 12.OX
9 4.5%
18 9.0%
46 23.OX
75 37.5%
108 54.OX
17 8.5%
104 76.5X
32 23.5%
Total number of respondents
Geographic lone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone. 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9
Zone 10
Use of walking/biking trails for snowmobiling in winter
Support
Oppose
No opinion/neutral
Other adults who share responsibility for property taxes
Yes
No
research Cuilc, 11;<:;'
The cityof Shorewood
Yater System Research--october, 1991
Data Table 10
Support/Oppose Questions Total Current water system Have you made a major Length of Shorewood residency
Investment in your well?
city water \.Iell system Not recent l y \.Ilthln 5 years 10 years or Over 10 yenrs
less
Total nunber of respondents 200 59 11.1 98 43 105 95
100.0% 29.5% 70.5" 69.5% 30.5% 52.5% 47.5%
Capital investment In a new city water system
Support 34.5% 47.5% 29.1" 26.5% 34.9% 45.7% 22.1%
Oppose 60.0% 45.8% 66.0% 69.4% 58.1% 50.5% 70.5%
No opinion/neutral 5.5% 6.8% 5.0% 4.1% 7.0% 3.8% 7.4%
Five year conversion period from wells to city water
support 63.0% 78.0% 56.7% 58.2% 53.5% 70.5% 54.7%
Oppose 35.0% 18.6" 41.8% 40.8% 44.2" 26.7% 44.2%
No opinion/neutral 2.0% 3.4% 1.4% 1.0% 2.3% 2.9% 1.1%
Assessing a portion of costs to all property owners
Support 63.5% 81.4% 56.0% 57.1% 53.5% 75.2% 50.5%
oppose 34.0% 15.3% 41.8% 41.8% 41.9% 21.9% 47.1.%
No opinion/neutral 2.5" 3.4" 2.1% 1.0% 4.7% 2.9% 2.1%
.
.
reseBfch Quik, 11/91
.
.
The city of Shorewood
Yater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 11
support/Oppose Questions Total Current water system Have you made a major Length of Shorewood res i d(!I1c y
investment In your well?
City water Yell system Not recently \lithin 5 years 10 years or Over 10 years
less
Total number of respondents 200 59 141 98 43 105 95
100.0% 29.5% 70.5% 69.5% 30.5% 52.5% 1.7.5%
Overa II support/oppose centralized water system
Support 43.5% 61.0% 36.2% 32.7% 44.2% 56.2% 29.5%
oppose 54.0% 37.3% 61.0% 65.3% 51 .2% 41. 9% 67.4%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% 1.7% 2.8% 2.0% 4.7% 1.9% 3.2%
Strength of overall support/opposition
Strongly support 18.9% 27.6% 15.2% 11. 5% 23.8% 24.3% 12.9%
Somewhat support 22.4% 25.9% 21.0% 20.8% 21.4% 29.1% 15.1%
Somewhat oppose 16.3% 17.2% 15.9% 17.7% 11.9% 14.6% 18.3%
Strongly oppose 42.3% 29.3% 47.8% 50.0% 42.9% 32.0% 53.8%
Use of walking/biking trails for snowmobiling In winter
Support 37.5% 30.5% 40.4% 42.9% 34.9% 32.4% 43.2%
Oppose 54.0% 66.1% 48.9% 46.9% 53.5% 61.0% 46.3%
No opinion/neutral 8.5% 3.4% 10.6% 10.2% 11.6% 6.7% 10.5%
reseafch Quik. 11/91
The City of Shorewood
Yater System Research--october, 1991
Data Table 12
Support/Oppose Questions Total Geographic zone
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10
Total number of respondents 200 24 16 10 4 27 22 24 9 18 46
100.0% 12.0% 8.0% 5.0% 2.0% 13.5% 11.0% 12.0% 4.5% 9.0% 23.0%
Capital investment in a new city water system
support 34.5% 41.7% 31.3% 40.0% 50.0% 22.2% 36.4% 41.7% 33.3% 38.9% 30.4%
Oppose 60.0% 50.0% 62.5% 50.0% 50.0% 70.4% 59.1% 58.3% 66.7% 55.6% 63.0%
No opinion/neutral 5.5% 8.3% 6.3% 10.0% .0% 7.4% 4.5% .0% .0% 5.6% 6.5%
Five year conversion per.lod from wells to city water
support 63.0% 70.8% 75.0% 50.0% 75.0% 63.0% 54.5% 66.7% 44.4% 61.1% 63.0%
oppose 35.0% 29.2% 18.8% 40.0% 25.0% 33.3% 45.5% 33.3% 55.6% 38.9% 34.8%
No opinion/neutral 2.0% .0% 6.3% 10.0% .0% 3.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.2%
Assessing a portion of costs to all property owners
Support 63.5% 75.0% 75.0% 90.0% 50.0% 40.7% 54.5% 62.5% 77.8% 66.7% 63.0%
oppose 34.0% 25.0% 18.8% .0% 50.0% 51.9% 45.5% 37.5% 22.2% 33.3% 34.8%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% .0% 6.3% 10.0% .0% 7.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.2%
research Quik, 11/91
.
.
.
.
The City of Shorewood
\.later System Research--october, 1991
Data Table 13
Support/Oppose Questions Total Geographic zone
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10
Total number of respondents 200 24 16 10 4 27 22 24 9 18 46
100.0% 12.0% 8.0% 5.0r. 2.0% 13.5% 11.0% 12.0% 4.5% 9.0% 23.0%
Overall support/oppose centralized water system
Support 43.5r. 50.0r. 50.0r. 70.0r. 75.0r. 29.6r. .50.0% 45.8% 44.4% 55.6% 28.3%
Oppose 54.0% 50.0% 50.0% 30.0% 25.0r. 59.3% 50.0% 54.2% 55.6% 38.9% 69.6%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 11.1% .0% .0% .0% 5.6% 2.2%
Strength of overall support/opposition
Strongly support 18.9% 12.5% 12.5% 30.0% 25.0% 16.0% 22.7% 29.2% 11. 1% 17.6% 17.8%
Somewhat support 22.4% 25.0% 37.5r. 50.0% 25.0% 12.0% 27.3% 16.7% 22.2% 41. 2% 8.9%
Somewhat oppose 16.3% 25.0r. 6.3% 10.0r. 25.0r. 24.0r. 18.2r. 8.3r. . Or. 5.9% 22.2%
Strongly oppose 42.3% 37.5% 43.8% 10.0% 25.0% 48.0X 31.8r. 45.8r. 66.7r. 35.3r. 51.1%
Use of walking/biking trails for snowmobiling In winter
Support 37.5% 20.8r. 18.8r. 10.0r. 75.0% 18.5% 36.4% 50.0r. 44.4% 50.0% 54.3%
Oppose 54.0r. 75.0r. 81.3r. 80.0r. 25.0% 66.7% 59.1 X 45.8r. 55.6X 38.9% 30.4X
No opinion/neutral 8.5% 4.2r. . or. 10.0r. .OX 14.8X 4.5X 4.2X .OX 11.1X 15.2%
reseBfch Quik, 11/91
'"
RLE COpy
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
CaUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob Daughertv
Daniel Lewis
OCTOBER, 1991
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
TO: Shorewood Residents
SUBJECT: Considering Expansion of the Municipal Water System
.
Over the last several months the Shorewood City Council has been considering whether to
construct a complete municipal water system for the City. This letter is intended to explain
the reasons why the water system expansion is even being considered; to report on the status
of the current municipal water system; to describe what is being proposed; to share with the
Shorewood citizens the various considerations in making such a decision; and to describe
avenues of public input.
Why is a Water System Expansion Bein~ Considered at this Time?
Although the Shorewood City Council is responsible for only eighteen cents of your property
tax dollar, the Council wants to be sure that that eighteen cents is spent well. Public
improvement projects need to be timed and financed carefully to minimize the impact on
property taxes.
.
To do this the Council is developing a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP
identifies public improvements projects to be done over the next 20 to 25 years, plans and
schedules them over the next 5 years, and budgets for those projects planned in 1992.
Water, sanitary sewer, parks, drainage, and public facilities are being reviewed along with
public works equipment. A summary of the CIP was published in Shorewood's Fall
Newsletter. The CIP will be reviewed and updated each year.
During review of the status of the current City water system and condition of City streets,
the question of expanding the water system was raised. A simple but important point to
keep in mind during this planning process is to be sure that all likely underground
improvements are installed before a street is rebuilt. Thinking ahead makes sense!
Financial planning saves dollars!
The Current Municipal Water System
Shorewood's existing municipal water system consists of seven wells, four hydro-pneumatic
tanks for pressure regulation without storage, and one elevated storage tank. The system
is not currently interconnected, and consists essentially of five different service areas.
The southeast service area is the most operationally viable. With a 400,000 gallon elevated
storage tank and a connection to the Minnetonka and Chanhassen water systems, a water
outage is unlikely. Water treatment for iron removal is currently under construction and
is scheduled for completion in late 1991.
#..- This publication :s om:''':
::a. "on I.. rp..-'~I,....jAr1 o. Cl'-'r,~"
"f'." .1 ;.__......~\...."""u: .......'-<',..
'"
The wells for the remaining four service areas are located in Badger Park (serving the area
near City Hall), Amesbury (in the northeast portion of town), Boulder Bridge (serving the
western part of town including Shorewood Oaks), and the W oodhaven well serving an area
along Apple Road. Of these, only the Badger Park system has a backup, with a connection
to Tonka Bay's elevated storage.
The City's water system currently serves approximately 30 percent of the households within
the City. Because the water system actually consists of five separate sub-systems, and
because some of the systems are under-utilized, the system as a whole has been very
inefficient financially. During the 1980's, the water fund ran up a deficit which, at its worst,
totaled $243,000; this deficit has been financed by the City's general operating fund reserves.
With a greater number of users being added onto the system, and with the addition of an
efficient system in the southeast area, the water fund has made a comeback of sorts in 1989
and 1990.
During that period, for the first time in years, the deficit was reduced. However, at the end
of 1990 there still was a fund deficit of over $200,000. These figures also ignore the cost of
long-term maintenance to the system for which funds should be set aside each year.
Because of the tenuous financial position of the water fund, the setting aside of such funds
has not been possible.
.
The financial figures of the last two years seem to show encouraging signs for the financial
integrity of the water fund. Projections show that, in the short-term, the water fund will
climb out of its current deficit by 1997. These projections, however, still do not consider
long-term maintenance costs. When long-term maintenance costs are considered projections
show that, even with modest growth in users and significant increases in water rates, the
water fund deficit will continue and actually grow. This would result in the general
operating fund continuing to finance the operations of the water fund.
So, with the Council currently planning for future improvements, with many streets in the .
position of needing improvement, and with the poor long-term financial outlook of our .
current water system, the Council is now considering expansion of the municipal water
system City-wide.
THE PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM
Expanding the municipal water system to encompass the entire City (except for the islands)
is an expensive proposition. It is estimated to cost 13 million dollars over a three year
period. Two-thirds of the estimated cost would be assessed on a per unit basis to those
units not currently hooked up to municipal water. Because the system will have many more
paying customers, it is anticipated that the remaining one-third of the total cost will be
picked up by system revenues and by future connection charges as new structures are built.
Those already connected to or who have been assessed for municipal water will not pay any
assessments for this improvement. Again, it should be noted that those living on Enchanted
and Shady Islands are not directly affected by this proposaL Assessments would pay for
installation and future system improvements and are estimated to be:
2
. $800 assessment per affected unit, spread over 15 years beginning in 1993, for
trunk main and storage:
Payments at 8% interest on the unpaid balance would decline as shown by this
illustration using years 1, 8, and 15.
Interest on Unpaid
Principal Balance Total Pavrnent
Year 1 $ 53.33 $ 64.00 $117.33
Year 8 53.33 34.13 87.46
Year 15 53.33 4.27 57.65
.
. An additional $4,000 assessment per affected unit spread over 15 years, beginning
when water is available to the property, for watermain (lateral) installation:
Payments at 8% interest on the unpaid balance would decline as shown by this
illustration using years 1, 8, and 15.
Interest on Unpaid
Principal Balance Total Pavrnent
Year 1 $266.67 $320.00 $586.67
Year 8 266.67 170.67 437.34
Year 15 266.67 21.33 287.95
These assessment costs do not include plumbing costs to bring water from the property line
to the structure and hook it up.
.
The proposal is being developed under the following City Council policy guidelines:
. Total assessment is estimated at this time to be $4,800 per unit for one and two
unit dwellings. Apartment buildings over 2 units would receive a "combined
service" reduction while commercial units would be increased by a multiplier.
. Those who have municipal water available now and have not paid a special
assessment, can connect by October 1, 1992 by paying $4,000, or connect after
that date by paying $4,800 plus a Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual adjustment.
. To lessen the financial impact, special assessments will be spread over a 15 year
period with as Iowan interest rate as possible.
. Each buildable lot of record will be assessed a minimum of one unit.
3
. The proposal is as "development neutral" as possible. The Council is concerned
that significant water assessments on large undivided parcels would force owners
to subdivide and sell lots sooner than would otherwise be the case. Large tracts
of land will be charged as only one unit until they are subdivided at which time
hookup charges would become due and payable. Those properties which are
subdivided in the future will pay a greater cost. Subdivided parcels adjacent to
watermain will have to pay a $2,500 water access charge plus a $4,000 hookup
charge (adjusted for CPI). Parcels resulting from an "internal" subdivision, which
are not adjacent to the watermain system, will have to pay the $2,500 water
access charge plus the cost of installing all mains to service those parcels. This
should counter balance the tendency of the availability of City water to encourage
development.
. In order to keep a financially viable system with rate increases kept at the rate
of inflation starting in 1993, it appears all properties will eventually have to
hookup to the system. The current proposal would require hookup within five
years of when water is available.
.
. Individual wells should be able to be kept for outside watering as long as they are
not interconnected to the municipal system.
. Services to property lines for future lots will be installed at the time of main
installation to prevent pavement disturbance in the future.
. A procedure will be established for deferral of assessments for low income
homeowners to mitigate undue hardship.
First there are considerations of City-wide significance:
· A City utility should be financially sound. It should have enough users to make
its operations cost-effective. Shorewood's water utility has not evolved over the
years as had been anticipated. Deficits that have been run up over many years
have made it necessary to subsidize the water utility fund operations and debt
service through general property taxes.
· A complete system would provide water even during power outages for a period
of time, whereas individual wells or a system not connected to an elevated tower
do not function during a power outage.
.
~
. We have recently become eligible for State aid funds to help rebuild some of our
roads. It is the City's intent, if City-wide water is desired in the near future, to
use these funds in rebuilding the roadway after watermain placement. Since the
funds can only be used once for the life of the surface on each roadway, it is
important to be careful to not use the funds and then decide to install water five
or ten years from now.
. The City roadway system will definitely be in a state of disrepair during
watermain construction. While it will be a construction priority to keep the
streets open for travel, some inconvenience will be encountered with regard to
mud, potholes, and detours. Public Safety Departments will have to be kept
notified of road status so that Police and Fire Protection can be maintained at all
times.
.
. A complete system provides for "looping" of the water mains. Looping is simply
a means for providing more than one path for water to reach a specific service.
This will allow continuous service with one portion down for maintenance; allow
supply from two directions during a fire; increase operating pressure by reducing
friction loss; and eliminate stagnant water in dead end pipes.
. It seems inevitable that eventually all buildable property in Shorewood will be
developed, however, the rate at which it gets developed may be influenced by the
availability of municipal water. Recent experience shows that the availability of
water is an important factor in a developer's site selection process and that
developer's are willing to pay for it. Two examples illustrate:
1) Shorewood Oaks - the developer extended approximately .9 miles of trunk
main to serve his project, resulting in water service costs in excess of $6,000
per lot.
.
2) Near Mountain - approved in the late 70's, the project was started in
Chanhassen because City water was available. The Shorewood portion of the
project did not start until the water issue was resolved for the southeast area.
. The Metropolitan Council is currently investigating water supply issues in the
metropolitan area. According to the Council's water-planning team head, the
Metropolitan Council plans to be more involved in water planning issues in the
future. We should have our own plans completed prior to metropolitan wide
involvement to be sure that our needs are met. It should be noted that there
already is a metropolitan wide sewer system in place in Shorewood.
. A complete system provides a way to more closely monitor our domestic water
use. This would provide data en what portion of our sewage flow is actually from
domestic use, and help us to pinpoint areas of excessive groundwater infiltration
and surface water inflow into our sanitary sewer system. Ultimately, this would
help us reduce our sanitary sewer rates.
..,
Each citizen will view these points differently. Some points will be considered in a positive
way, others in a negative way. Some considerations of particular interest to those who are
currently not on the municipal water system are as follows:
. Cost - the program is designed to minimize "sticker shock" by having utility
revenue pick up one-third of the actual cost and allowing assessments to be paid
over 15 years. The fact remains that it is expensive...an estimated $4,800 plus the
cost of bringing the water into the unit. With this, however, we need to keep in
mind that private wells are also expensive. With a private well, besides the initial
cost of installation, ongoing major and minor maintenance, as well as individual
well replacement cost do not stop. When the municipal system special assessment
is paid off any further expenditures should be covered by system revenues.
With a municipal water system there will be quarterly water bills. The City's
charges for water are based on household usage, and averages $37.60 in a typical
winter quarter. This amount may be more or less, depending on usage, and may .-
increase with seasonal water usage, ie. lawn watering.
This should be considered alongside:
. The cost of a private well pump (15 horsepower) which could run two to six
hours per day, depending on usage... Example:
2 hours/day X 16 cents/kilowatt hour = 32 cents day
. times 365 days
equals $117/year
. The resulting improvement in our ISO (Insurance Services Office) rating from
class 9 to class 6 with a municipal water system could, depending on the
insurance company, reduce insurance premiums. Fire Marshal Neudahl .
surveyed several insurance companies with the following results:
Value of Home
Range of Annual
Premium Savings
$ 80,000
$120,000
$150,000
$250,000
$64-$97
$106 - $173
$132 - $217
$376 - $398
Each property owner should check with their insurance carrier to see what, if any premium
savings would result.
6
.
.
"
. There are health benefits associated with the chlorination and fluoridation of
water, and both are currently done with our existing wells. Chlorine is widely
recognized and used as a disinfectant. Fluoride has been established as helpful
in the development of teeth free from decay.
. Some people simply prefer water from a private well to water from a City system.
. Because of water quality, quantity, or cost, sometimes neighbors get together to
petition for municipal water. Scattered petitions for municipal water can result
in neighborhood conflicts and significantly varying costs for installation of
municipal water. Some petitions may have to be refused due to the lack of
capacity of the current system.
. There are "economies of scale" associated with installing an entire system over a
three year period which is not likely to be there if petitions are received to install
water in various neighborhoods and the City undertakes those small projects in
a piecemeal fashion.
. There can be peace of mind knowing the Fire Department can hookup to a
reliable fire hydrant nearby. Fire Marshal Neudahl explains: "If we have no
hydrants we must use a tanker water supply system which takes longer to set up
and once the tanker is empty drive to the nearest supply of water, usually the
closest hydrant, to refill and return to the scene".
. There is more and more concern in the State Department of Health for potential
contamination of individual wells.
Considerations of particular interest for those citizens already served by municipal water are
as follows:
. Unless the water system is expanded significant rate increases are inevitable in
the future to reasonably account for system maintenance and depreciation.
Projections of high water rates will be held down by the increased number of
users in a complete system.
. Currently, four of the five water systems in the City use a hydro-pneumatic tank
to maintain system pressure. These systems are very much like a single home
well/pressure tank system, and therefore are just as vulnerable to power outages.
Also, the constant on-off cycles required of the large motors involved is energy
inefficient, and results in expensive repairs and increased maintenance costs.
. Three of the five systems have no backup to prevent water outage in case of
power failure which causes concern for fire protection.
...
!
Public Input
At this time a majority of the City Council feels the proposal for the construction of a
complete municipal water system has merit. The Fall City Newsletter and this letter are
intended to inform the general public on the issue. But what are the avenues for public
input?
In this representative democracy your elected City Council is responsible for making such
decisions. They are interested in your thoughts. The following are methods of
communicating your thoughts to the City Council:
. Write your thoughts in a letter to the City Council in care of City Hall, 5755
Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331.
. Call or stop them on the street to voice your opinions.
. A professional research firm will be conducting a public opinion telephone poll
on the issue within the next week. If you are called please spend a few minutes
with the poller offering your opinions.
. A public information meeting on the proposal for municipal water will be held:
Monday, November 4, 1991
7:30 pm
Multi-Purpose Room/Gym
Minnewashta Elementary School
26350 Smithtown Road
Shorewood
..
.
. A second public information meeting will be held on the other elements of the
Capital Improvement Program (sewer, drainage, streets, public buildings, etc.). .
Comments on the water proposal will be heard at this meeting as well, at the
same location on Monday, November 18, 1991 at 7:30 pm.
. A public hearing on the Capital Improvement Program will be held before the
Planning Commission, at the same location on Tuesday, November 19, 1991 at
7:30 pm.
. If the City Council adopts the CIP with a water system expansion included, each
affected property owner will be invited to a public hearing on the proposed
improvement. During or after installation of the improvement a final public
hearing will be held on the proposed assessment for affected property owners.
Your input will be greatly appreciated.
8
~
Page 1 of 3
July 5, 1991
DISCUSSION OUTLINE
WATER FACILITY EXPANSION SECTION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I. REASONS FOR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
.
A.
Reduces overall operating costs (economy scale).
Our current 600 user system is not efficient. The
sections of the system are scattered and not. connected.
B. Health/Liability. We are currently operating beyond
State guidelines for storage.
C. System Efficiency. Increased Looping of watermains would
reduce water standing in dead end pipes for extended
periods.
D. Fire Protection. The hydro-pneumatic systems provide no
back-Up for a power outage.
E.
Improved Fire Insurance Rating. The ISO fire rating
would improve from nine to six for property serviced by
municipal water. There would be an estimated $130
premium savings annually on a $250,000 home according to
Fire Marshall Tom Neudahl.
.
F. system Redundancy. The recent water outages in Amesbury
and Waterford would not have happened if the systems were
interconnected. A power outage at one site would not
shut down the system.
The City would be better prepared for development.
Extension of the system to undeveloped areas would make
more sense than requiring wells be built.
G.
~. :to
'':"'-'Ii
.~~
''f
.;~
.~-",.
;~t~-
)~~
;~l
_~'~:y~,'ii
~"..;-.
. ',__~!P
'.-:.X::~-'
.-.....-,.,...
- ._, -'.l'1~:::
Discussion - Water Facility Expansion system
July 5, 1991
Page Two of Three
II. BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS
What responsibility does the City have to provide a
water system which is capable of being physically
reliable, and technically and financially sound?
Should the City encourage hook-ups? Allowing residents
to wait to pay for the system until they hook-up later
with a financical burden on those hooking up to the
system presently.
Should the city require special assessments to
even if hook-up to the system is not required?
benefit such that paying for the main in front
property is justified?
be paid
Is the
of the
Should the City encourage Development? Assessment of a
large parcel for a number of units may force development
of that large parcel to payoff assessments.
III. ASSESSMENT POLICY
A. Should assessments be calculated and charged by the
number of buildable units?
B. Should assessments be calculated and charged by linear
feet? (front footage)
c. Should assessments be calculated and charged by area?
D. Should assessments be calculated and charged by a combin-
ation thereof?
"
.'
,:'t".l
1
:"I't
.",",
}JI
':;'I~"
':-:~- :
:'''';! -:"
._;."~. '- j
" "~
.' ':"7~t:
iI.
,
I'
::: 'I
/r
", ,I
':'- .
::~~ i
'Ji .
'i
~-
(
.
IV. POTENTIAL ASSESSMENTS
estimated potential total' units in the city
Shady Island units
minus (-) 435 units which were assessed for
east treatment plant = 3245 units (A)
currently on the system
(B) & (C)
potential from future" internal plats" - water-
main paid for at time of construction
(D)
A. For Treatment Plant Construction
___p_ __$_9QQ, OOOj~ units ?11 r
- -,.~ ,-.
., "'" , :
wI .'. -..
.
c. For Trunk watermain
_~O-un-its
= $ 275junit
\..J
~
...., -
= $ 22'5junit
\~0
= $ 235junit
B. For Elevated storage
$675,000j3aOO units
" .. .'
D. For Basic watermain Construction
$10,970,000/2450 units
= $4,475jUnit
7j23/91 al
'-
Justification of $4,800 Assessment
.
$13,250,000
Cost of Construction
divided by 1800
Estimated lots to be assessed at construction
equals
$7,360
$4,800
$2,560
Cost per current lot
(About 2/3 of per lot cost) would be the per
lot assessment_
Would come from the water fund and future lot
hookups
Of the total costs about $1,500,000 or $833/1ot is for new trunk
mains and tower. So of the $4,800 assessment, $4,000 could be
considered for main and $800 for trunk and tower.
. In 1985 municipal water for the Shorewood Oaks project was
estimated to increase market value by $4,000. Since then the
assessor's residential market value, which is a measure of
real estate inflation, has increased as illustrated here:
Year
Inflation Rate
x
$4.000 Inflated
1986 over 1985
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992) projections
1993)
no change
4.2%
5.6%
5.5%
6.8%
2.4%
2%
2%
$4,000
$4,168
$4,401
$4,643
$4,959 -
$5,078
$5,180
$5,283
The third column increases $4,000 by that rate of inflation.
all
9/16/91
,
.
.,
Item #5
(
(
.
Water Petitions
More and more citizens are likely to be inquiring about City water.
Someone asked about the process today. As petitions for water come
in...what criteria should be used to determine whether or not the
requested main should be installed?
I
I
Human Considerations:
Is there a Petition? Percent in Favor/Opposed
Current Policy on Petition Requests
Personal/Human Questions
.
Health Considerations:
Is there contamination?
Is there a Health Emergency?
Planning/Public Works Considerations:
.
In system Plan?
PWC Priority?
Trunk line vs. Residential Main?
Does it Perform a Looping Function?
Is it a Logical progression of Main Installation?
Is it Within the Capacity of the Limited Staff to
Undertake?
Private System Involvement?
I
l
Financial Considerations:
Availability of Finds
Genreal obligation Debt Capacity
Special Assessment/General Fund Ratio (City Cost)
Costs in Getting to Public Hearing
Budget Considerations - Timing of Borrowing
Financing options (G.O., B Bonds)
r
;
t
l
...
, f400
.
COMPREHE.NSIVE
WATER
STUDY
: ,Y II I'..A~) < A/I ref
~"""'./-\t"- \...).. i~r- oFf. .. - v...... V
'i ~
\ + If.'\
~'-'~-r fJ-t'v'Lt
FOR THE
~..
MAYOR
Robert R-.cap
COUNCU.
Jan Haugen
TMi $haw
Kristl StOWf' .
RobIrt c;.gn.
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug UtIm.mmer
CITY OF
.SHOREWOOD
.~
- -,' . >..:_- -:.-.'.>
=--osM
COauL1III1 II_11M
U111 ..11m... ORa. SCHELEN . MAYERON &ASSOCIATE8. INe.
\. '. 1 1. . J 'DIVISION OF KIDDE CONSULTANTS, 1fIC. .
. ""'''''''''''2021 EAST HENNEPIN AVE. . SUITE ,%31 . IU""EAPOUS. MINNESOTA 55413 . (612) 331-1110
~-~..::
, fEBRUARY, 1884
."~">i".c:
'.'~f ,,"~',
-. ..-.~--_.:.--, -.'._-". ---_.....~~..~-"_. ...._,,"-..,.._.-..._...~..:...::.-....:..~.....,"". '"''
;'
.
I
:
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. STUDY AREA AND POPULATION FORECASTS
III. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
WATER DEMAND
PIPE SIZING AND DISTRIBUTION
SUPPLY AND STORAGE
IV.
EXISTING SYSTEM
BADGER FIELD
AMESBURY
WOO DHAV EN
BOULDER BRIDGE FARM
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
SUPPLY
STORAGE
DISTRIBUTION
. VI. SEQUENCE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
VII. ASSESSMENTS
PROPOSED METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
TYPICAL USER COST
3381
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Shorewood Water Study is a comprehensive plan to
guide the City in the development of its municipal water system.
The immediate goal of this study is directed towards the optimum
use of existing facilities and identification of necessary facility
expansion to accommodate development within the City of Shorewood
until the year 2000. The proposed municipal water system will
eliminate the need for individual wells, provide adequate fire
protection and provide the City with a reliable water source. Addi-
tionally, facility needs related to full ultimate development are
also addressed.
All components of the current system, including source of sup-
ply, storage, and distribution were evaluated for adequacy relative
to present needs. City records of current water usage and sewage
flow were analyzed to determine per capita, daily average, daily
maximum, maximum hourly and fire flow requirements. Future water
needs of the City were determined from population forecasts based
on anticipated development patterns and comprehensive plan based
growth projections. The forecasts indicated the amount and location
of anticipated City growth to the year 2000 and beyond. Using the
current water system as a base, a future system was developed a~d
analyzed. The potential system was located and sized to serve
anticipated growth to the year 2000 and for the project saturation
population of 11,500. Computer analysis techniques were used ex-
tensively in the investigation of the future systems. Alternative
__J~'f,r~,....,_
-1-
"'-
.
.
.
~
1
I.
I
1
I
~
.
J
~
1
t
1
~
~
schemes for required size and location of the source, supply,
storage, and distribution components of the system were evaluated.
Cost estimates for the recommended scheme were developed and system
phasing needs were examined. The recommendations of this study
were made based on conclusions from this analysis.
There is no reference in this report to water treatment
however at some time in the future treatment may become necessary.
From our experience in other communities served by chlorinated and
fluoridated raw well water residents may eventually experience
"red" water problems. While this situation is not a health hazard,
asthetically it is undesireable. This potential problem is stated
here as an informational item to the City Council and staff to
eliminate any suprises in the future by a residents' phone call
regarding rusty water. It may be many years before such a condi-
tion would develop and with the looping of the water line continual
movement of the water helps prevent stagnation problems in dead end
lines. A good example of how long a system could operate without a
problem is the original Amesbury system which has been in operation
since 1973 without any apparent ~red" water problems.
-2-
.
II. STUDY AREA AND POPULATION FORECASTS
The study area in this report encompasses the entire City of
Shorewood, however, the Shady/Enchanged Island area cannot be
served by a central water system and will be excluded from further
consideration in this report. The land area included in the" study
totals approximately 3,250 acres.
The population forecasts as contained in the comprehensive
plan and as projected for eventual full development are as follows:
YEAR
POPULATION
1980
1990
2000
SATURATION
4,600
6,300
7,400
11,500
In the past, the population projections accepted by the City
have varied considerably from those made by the Metropolitan
Council; however, both entities are now in basic agreement that the
ultimate or saturation population of Shorewood will be approxi-
mately 11,500.
-3-
~
.
.
~
IV. EXISTING SYSTEM
The existing municipal water system for Shorewood consists of
several scattered and isolated wells which, along with hydro-
neumatic pressure tank~ and small distribution systems, provide
water to four areas within the City. Each of these supplies is
commonly referred to by the residential development it serves or by
its geographical location.
BADGER FIELD
The Badger Field well was constructed in 1981 and is located
. on City property adjacent to Badger Field Park. The well has a 16"
inner casing and terminates at 372 feet in the Jordan sandstone
formation. The existing pump has a capacity of 450 gpm but the
well output could be increased to 700 gpm with pump modifications.
Presently the well serves mostly residential customers to the east
of Badger Field Park.
AMES BURY
. The Amesbury well was constructed to serve the original Ames-
bury Development and its numerous additions. This Jordan well has a
16" diameter casing and is 528 feet deep. It has a 500 gpm pumping
capacity which could be upgraded to 700 gpm if necessary.
WOODHAVEN
This well on the southern edge of the community has a 12"
diameter casing and is drilled to a depth of 490 feet into the
-10-
'L_ _~
Jordan Sandstone. The pump capacity is 300 gpm, but with modifi-
cations it could be increased to 500 gpm. The well was drilled in
1979 to serve the Woodhaven II subdivision.
BOULDER BRIDGE FARM
At the Boulder Bridge Farm site, two wells with 12" inner cas-
ings were constructed in 1981. The wells are each 640 feet deep
and use the Ironton-Galesville formation as an aquifer. Each well
has a 500 gpm capacity and was drilled to initially serve the
Boulder Bridge Farm Subdivision with plans to incorporate them into
a community-wide water system.
4It
GENERAL COMMENTS
The pumps installed on each well differ in size and operating
characteristics. The pumps were initially designed to pump against
a pressure provided by hydro-pneumatic tanks. With the proposed
water system, the pressure or head will be generated by elevated
tanks. The total dynamic head against which a pump acts is the ele-.
vation difference between the elevated tank and the water level in
the well including drawdown, plus t~e sum of the friction losses
through the distribution system resulting from the transmission of
the water from the source to the tank. During construction of the
proposed system it may be necessary to modify the pumping equipment
at some or all of the wells to insure that supply matches system
demands and characteristics.
4It
-11-
.. . ..... II.
I
I
I
-
I
I
;1
I
.-
I
'.
..
~
I
~
(0.
v. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
When referring back to Figure II, "MAXIMUM DAILY DEMANDS AND
STORAGE REQUIREMENTS", it can be seen that the existing pumping
capacity of 2,300 gpm would be sufficient for the needs of the
community until sometime near the year 2000 when another well is
needed to provide the "stand-by" requirements of a City such as
Shorewood. It is anticipated that the new well would be located in
the southeast corner of the City and that it would have a capacity
of 1,000 gpm. As an option, two wells totaling that capacity could
be provided.
STORAGE
The total storage requirements of the community will increase
from the present need of about 1.l4 million gallons to the ultimate
requirement of 1.88 million gallons. It is proposed that this stor-
age be provided in the form of two elevated tanks located near the
Minnewashta Elementary School and near S.T.H. No.7 and its
intersection with Covington Road. With an overflow elevation of
l,l60 feet MSL, the tanks would be 190 feet and l40 feet high, re-
spectively. Elevations within the City of Shorewood vary from 900'
to 1060' Mean Sea Level. Users below elevation 975 may require the
installation of pressure reducing valves to maintain pressure at an
acceptable level and prevent possible damage to plumbing.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The proposed water distribution system layout was developed in
an effort to meet the following criteria:
-12-
'I
'JL"- ~-:f
11
(a) Provide interconnection of the entire system. ~
(b) Provide looping of mains to the maximum feasible extent.
(c) Keep pressure variations to a minimum.
(d) Provide 50 psi residual pressure to all areas at maximum
daily demand flow rate.
(e) Use a maximum pipe size of 16" diameter.
(f) Allow for a logical phasing of construction.
(g) Meet the fire flow requirements while maintaining a
residual pressure of 20 psi throughout the system.
The proposed trunk watermain and major laterals necessary for
the City at saturation density is shown on the distribution map in
the back pocket. It is not intended that this system would serve
as a complete distribution system for the community, but rather it
should be considered a framework to which smaller lateral lines
-
could be connected. Such connections would occur as development
would dictate.
The cost of the system as shown on the map plus the additional
laterals necessary to serve the remaining developed areas of the
City is estimated to be $12,360,000. (Refer to Figure III).
VI. SEQUENCE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
From viewing the map of the proposed distribution system, it
-
is apparent that the development of a single water system for the
City is effectively created by distribution systems on the easterly
and westerly portions of the community which are interconnected by
approximately 20,000 feet of 12 inch watermain. If phasing of con-
struction is necessary for financial or logistic reasons it would
be reasonable to develop the eastery and westerly portions of the
system independent of each other and make the interconnection near
the end of construction phases.
-13-
.
.
,.
RESOLUTION No..6o-84
WATER POLICY MOTION
The Citizens of Shorewood ~ill obtain water by means of
i~dividual private wells or privatelY owned community
wells until the Citizens demand municipal water or if
the private supply is threatened by shortage or contamination
and when the City can economically afford to provide
municipal water. This policy is not_intended to prohibit
the purchase of water from existing municipal facilities
at the resident's request.
-n.
!O~
Adopted by the City Council this 5zt'1 day of September,
1984.
:-
To:
Mayor and City Council
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
Date:
April 4, 1997
From:
Re:
Park Capital Improvement Program
. Attached please find a Park Capital Improvement Program which was recommended by the
Park Commission last fall.
This document is different in that it includes projects which are yet to be completed from
previous years. Those projects are asterisked.
The first such project is the sodding/seeding of the football field and park area of Badger
Park. The Park Commission is requesting the Youth Football Association, Tonka Men's
Club and Legion to donate toward the purchase of sod and help in the laying of the sod,
hopefully on a Saturday in late May. We will have to coordinate this project with the
contractor of the Senior Community Center project. The reminder of the asterisked items
again are those that funds had been set aside for but had been completed. For example, the
picnic area near the volleyball court in Freeman Park. All of these items will be reviewed in
detail at the work session.
.
~
PARKS
Park Project Schedule:
The Park Capital Improvement Plan (PCIP) for 1997-2001 is shown on the following page. The PCIP
lists projects planned for each year. Budget numbers are adjusted with an inflation factor and should be
considered the budget for the entire project including "soft costs" such as planning, engineering, project
management, etc.
>> >.~ 999 20P
2000
BADGER:
Horseshoe Pit, Shuffleboard 10,000
Well Building Picnic Shelter 10,00(
Sod/Seed Football Field * 7,00C
Overlay Tennis Court 9,50C
CA THCART:
Warming House, Picnic Shelter 28,000
Overlay Tennis Court 9,000
. MANOR:
Overlay Tennis Courts 8,5OC
West Rink Light 8,5OC
.
SIL VERWOOD:
Warming House, Picnic Shelter 30,00C
FREEMAN:
Building North - Loan 50,000
Picnic Shelter & Picnic Area* 25,000
(Project # 96-C)
Install Drinking Fountains* 10,000
(Proiect # 96-G)
Tennis courts(2) 50,000
Extend Lot So. Toward TH7 5,000
. OTHER:
Park Grills, Pads & Permanent Trash Cans 6,00C
at Cathcart, Manor & Silverwood
Landscaping: Freeman - Reseed east side 10,00C
of south playstructure and north end of
volleyball; Reseed around fields #1,2 & 3;
Replace Arbor Day tree (North). Manor-
Topsoil and seed west side of tennis court
and west side of warming house.
Silverwood - Repair turf by parking
lot/walkway area. * (Proiect # 96-E)
.
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 150,OOC $ 59,00C $9,50C $ 28,000 $ 30,000
* 1996 Projects rebudgeted for 1997
Updated 4/3/97
29
The Funding Source Summary - Park Capital Fund illustrates where funds will come from
to pay for the improvements scheduled on the PCIP. Note that the "projects/expenditure"
line corresponds with the "total expenses" line on the PCIP.
Updated 4/3/97
10,000
11,900
13,600
15,300
Fund Balance, Jan 1
Park Dedication Fees
General Fund Contribution
Donations
General Fund Balance
Sports Organizations - park
Maint.
Parks Foundation - Park
1m .
Parks Foundation - BId
Pro' ects/Ex enditures
Tfr to General Fund -
Maint.
Interest Income
Fund Balance Dee 31
Designated for Freeman
Park (Cumulative)
Undesign. Fund Balance,
Dee 31
The Park Capital Improvement Fund is established to finance improvement in the city's
park system. Revenues are derived from park dedication fees from land subdivisions
within the City, budgeted transfers from the General Fund, donations and the Shorewood
Parks Foundation. Expenditures shown are for improvements funded from these sources.
Fund balances will be allocated to future ark im rovements.
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
( 150,000)
(10,000)
(59,000)
(11,900)
10,000
(9,500)
(13,600)
10,000
(28,000)
(15,300)
6,973
66,934
(2,000)
3,347
40,281
(6,000)
2,014
58,795
(12,000)
2,940
61,735
(20,000)
64,934
34,281
46,795
41,735
30
17,500
10,000
10,000
(30,000)
(17,500)
3,087
64,822
(30,000)
34,822
~ f.~'"
.
.
" ~
STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT
Stormwater management can be broken down into two categories. The first category are
regional drainage issues which serve larger tributary areas (10 acres or more). The second
area is considered miscellaneous drainage maintenance projects which can serve a larger
area, but routinely are maintenance issues that have smaller tributary areas.
Re2ional Issues
Over the last five years capital improvement programs have listed two larger projects
which serve larger tributary areas. These are known as the Glen Road Drainage Project,
and the Grant Lorenz drainage project.
As originally planned, the first year of these projects were to prepare feasibility studies,
obtain easements or direct possession of the parcels necessary, and to complete the design
. of the project. The actual construction of the project would occur the following year.
Glen Road. This project consists of developing ponds in the proximity of the
intersection of Glen Road and Manitou Road. A feasibility report has been prepared and
updated in June of 1988 and August of 1990 respectively. The City Council has again
authorized an additional update of the feasibility to reflect new changes in regional pond
requirements, and to account for additional funding sources that may be available.
Funding mechanisms for the Glen Road Drainage project were established in the updated
feasibility study in 1990. A special taxing district was set up for the tributary area of the
ponds which proposed to assess 70 percent of the project to homeowners who are
tributary to the pond.
.
Since that time, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has passed new regulations
which make certain revenues available for projects which serve regional areas.
Representatives from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are very eager for the Glen
Road Drainage Project to be constructed. Although the Watershed District can not
guarantee a specific amount, the amount of financial participation appears to be very
promising. Staff is hoping that the amount of financial participation by the District may
offset a majority or entirety of the funds that would have been collected by the special
taxing district.
Grant-Lorenz. This project entails improvement to the drainage way north of Smith town
Road along Grant-Lorenz. Included is ditch cleaning, culvert replacement, and
realignment in some areas.
18
~ '~.~
Stormwater Management Plan
New Legislative mandates require that municipalities have approximately two years to
update their stormwater management plans in accordance with the watershed district
regulations. A majority of the City of Shorewood lies within the jurisdiction of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, with the remaining portion being part of the Riley
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
It is estimated that a complete Stormwater management plan will cost the City of
Shorewood approximately $100,000, assuming the City has aerial photography
completed. Staffis currently checking into various-alternatives for this mapping to reduce
the final costs. For the purposes of this CIP, the $100,000 will remain in the budget. It is
assumed that the costs and time to complete the study will be spread over the 1997-1998
time period.
Project Schedule:
.
.~lllllili:I::illill:iii:l:l::llll:::iillllllllilililllililili:lllilllli:llilililllllllllillllllil:lliil:lllilllll:iiUil~i:lllllllllillillll:l:lliillliIU1111111:1Ill:rl.llllllillllllllllIUlliiillllli
iillllllllllil:11il~i::il:UI11::ililililll:ll.ll:lillll:IIUIII11111111111111111;~;:::::::..
Glen Road:
Easements
Construction
Grant-Lorenz:
Easements
Construction
Stormwater Plan
Aerial Mapping
Mana ement Plan
Regional Pond per
Storm Plan
Easements
$88,000
$115,000
$5,000
$65,000
$44,000
$30,000
$25,000
.
$80,000
TOTAL $163,000 $140,000
$5,000
$65,000
$80,000
Fundin2 Source Summary:
The following funding source summary illustrates where dollars will come from to fund
the project schedule:
19
...
:::111Iill:::::::::i:::::111:iI1!:I!11111::111:111111:11:11~1111:1111:11::iilli:i:l:::::i:[::i1::::::::::i[:[::::::::[11:::!:::::[[:[I11i:I1:::::1::_I[:.II:I_;I[11:il:::ll::::!1
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Fund Balance, Jan. I $189,385 $59,845 $68,516 $97,904 $69,601
Utility Fee Revenues $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000
General Fund Contribution $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Estimated Watershed Contribution (1) $0 $115,000 $0 $0 $0
Maintenance Expenditures $(22,000) $(22,000) $(22,000) $(22,000) $(22,000)
Project Expenditures $(163,000) $(140,000) $(5,000) $(62,000) $(80,000)
Interest Income @ 5% $1,460 $1,671 $2,388 $1,698 $540
. Fund Balance, December 31 $59,845 $68,516 $97,904 $69,601 $22,141
.
The Storm Drainage Fund is established to finance maintenance of the City's storm sewer
system, and to fund future drainage projects. Revenues are derived from a utility charge
to all properties within the City. The City anticipates that 50% of annual revenues will be
used to maintain the system, and 50% will be available for drainage projects. Annual
contributions from the General Fund and tax levies on special drainage districts will
complete the funding requirements for drainage projects. The amounts shown for
drainage projects are as listed on the Storm Drainage Schedule.
The following page is a flow chart which explains funding for the Shorewood Storm water
Management Program.
20
""'"-'
I
t..
t
i::;i
j',.'
.i'
The Shorewood Stormwater Management Program
Funding Outline
f'uncling"
..Source:
Issue
Addressed:
Shorewood/Lake System @
Stormwater Management
UlIlIty Fee=$3.75/Quarler
$20,000/Year
Slormwaler System
Maintenance Projects
. . .._.--4. T~
$20,OOO/Year
20% or
Project Cost
Sixteen separat~
Watershed Districts
wlLh Taxing ALlthoriLy
10%or
Projecl Cost
70% of
Projecl Cosl
Slonnwater Management
Improvement Projects
Conllned WlLhin Separate
Watershed Districts
-- _.-..-_._~..........~-..~.,.--,...._T::>>C~___.~~~"~~_.~___~T~"
@ City-wide utility district. Simplc}ee schedule based partially 011 water rUlJo)}:
~ General fUlld contribution to city-wide drainage projects.
C0 Special taxing district charges based Oil value will be levied only wIlen a
project is done within that watershed district.
.
.
\
.
.
MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
The major goal of the first few years of this capital program will be the implementation of
projects that are funded with the Storm Water Utility Fund. These projects are, by
definition, small in scope. No single project should be larger than $15,000, and it is
anticipated that they will average about $3,000.
The City sets aside $20,000 per year to fund miscellaneous projects to correct drainage
problems. Miscellaneous drainage projects are prioritized according to the outline or
ranking system listed below. Projects will be initiated and completed in rank of priority,
and then according to the date of the complaint.
CRITERIA FOR MINOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS
TO BE FUNDED BY STORMWATER UTILITY
GENERAL-
Projects to be funded under this utility will include only
those projects that are estimated to cost less than $15,000.
Projects will be completed in order of priority, as defined
below and as categorized and dated by the Public Works
Director. Where two (2) or more projects have the same
priority, the older of the projects will be completed first,
funding permitted. Total project spending per year will not
exceed $30,000 or the fund balance, whichever is smaller.
1)
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH
Primary attention will be paid to those projects that impact the public health or
safety. These projects would include ice problems on the road, erosion that is
causing a hazardous structural problem (i. e. undermining a road), or storm water
that is causing a significant health problem (such as flooding the sanitary system).
2)
SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE CITY
This category will include those projects that, while not endangering the public
health, will still have a negative impact on the residents as a whole. Projects in this
category include minor infrastructure replacement that cannot be funded cost
effectively by other means. Other potential projects include erosion causing
property damage and minor structure replacement.
22
3) PUBLIC NUISANCE
This category includes those projects that cannot be considered a substantial
hazard, are not likely to cause a financial loss to the City, but are a public nuisance.
These projects include standing water in the roadway, unwanted flooding in public
parks, and minor erosion projects.
4) PRIVATE NUISANCE
Finally, those projects that are a nuisance to a single residence or small group of
residences that the City Council deems that the City has some responsibility to help
correct. These projects include those instances where a large drainage area is
causing a problem to a small area, and the homeowner( s) is ( are) willing to allow a
right-of-entry to City crews without cost.
.
.
23
MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE
The following items are only excerpts taken from a list of drainage problems and
complaints to demonstrate prioritization of problems.
Priority 1. Public Safety and Health
. Near Mountain Boulevard, sump pump and drain tile discharge to street - (8/94).
, . Bayswater storm sewer erosion, erosion for outlet into existing pond - (8/96)
Priority 2. Substantial Financial Impact to City
. Morgobsky, 23622Smithtown Road, drainage and 1&1 problem, - (3/94)
. Pfiffuer, 4965 Suburban Drive, ponding problem near neighbor's house - (10/95)
. Priority 3. Public Nuisance
. CollinslMuirfield Circle rear yard drainage - (10/95)
. Frederickson/Peach Circle pond, requests that pond slopes be re-graded - (5/96)
Priority 4. Private Nuisance
. Rear yard drainage problem at Brown residence along Harding Lane - (6/92).
. Bache sump pump drainage, 5535 Wedgewood Road - (5/94).
. Korin drainage problem, 6135 Cathcart Road - (10/95)
. First State Bank Excelsior, pond control structure siltation - ( 11/95)
. Deganda, 6030 Mill Street, neighbor obstructed drainage-way - (5/96)
. Grove drainage problem, 5375 Howard's Point Road - (6/96)
.
24
.
.
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
The operation and maintenance of. the sanitary sewer system is a City responsibility
necessary to protect the public health. The existing system covers nearly all property
within the City limits and includes varying sizes and types of gravity sewer along with 18
lift stations to transport sewage where gravity flow is not possible.
The system can be divided into roughly two categories, the older, original portions
constructed by the City in the early 1970's and the newer portions constructed as a part of
relatively recent development.
As the older portions of the system are nearing 20 years old, recent expenditures have
focused on the maintenance and cleaning of the older gravity lines combined with the
rehabilitation of lift stations (which is now completed). Maintenance has consisted of
flushing, televising, and sealing to prevent the inflow and infiltration (1&1) of clear (ground
and rain) water into the system. In 1994 a Comprehensive City-wide clear water inflow
and infiltration inspection program was completed. Rehabilitation of the lift stations
consisting primarily of conversion to modem systems and the replacement ~f worn parts
was completed in 1994.
Inflow and Infiltration U&D Control:
1&1 reduction is desirable from both an economic and environmental standpoint.
Reducing the amount of clear water in the sanitary system should reduce the charges
levied by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and reduce the
operating time of the lift stations. Data from the MCEC and lift station run times will be
analyzed yearly to determine what, if any, benefit is being realized by the City. The
economic worth of the environmental issues involved is necessarily a matter of council
policy.
In 1995 the MCES established a Task Force to review its cost allocation methods. At the
present time, the MCES uses a single rate system which allocates its current operating
expenses to the user communities on the basis of the wastewater flow each community
contributes. Some communities, particularly the core cities, have argued that it is more
costly to serve outlying communities and, therefore, those communities should be charged
a higher rate. To assist in investigating the current MCES rate structure, the Task Force
established a technical advisory committee. This is made up of representatives from
various user communities. Shorewood is represented on the committee by the City
Administrator.
At this time, there appears to be little support for changing the single rate cost allocation
method now used by the MCES. However, there does appear to be strong support for
raising the portion of the debt service paid by SAC charges thereby requiring an increase
in the SAC rate. Increases in the SAC rate are likely. Since the SAC rate charged by the
23
Sanitary Sewer System Extensions:
.
MCES is uniform, and Shorewood has relatively few new connections each year, but is a
"wet" community, a SAC increase could be of some benefit toShorewood because it
would tend to reduce the growth of sewer rates.
An important recommendation that the Technical Advisory Committee has made to the
Task Force deals with inflow and infiltration (1&1) reduction. A study recently conducted
indicates that the MCES could save $2 million per year if all 1&1 in the sewer system were
reduced to normal levels. The suggestion is for the MCES to allocate a total of $1 million
per year in the form $50,000 maximum loans to user communities for 1&1 reduction
programs. The communities would pay the loans back at the rate of $10,000 per year.
However, ifprogress can be shown toward reducing 1&1, the loans would be forgiven. All
of the details of this program are yet to be developed. It is not clear as to whether or not
the Task Force will adopt or endorse the committee's recommendations. If the MCES
adopts such a program, Shorewood should apply to participate.
Late in 1996, the MCES awarded a $10,000 "matching dollars" grant for the purposes of .
preparing a study for the reduction of Infiltration and Inflow into the City of Shorewood
sanitary sewers. In turn, the City of Shorewood has committed to prepare a study which
examines the following:
. Data Collection and evaluation: This portion of the project is to review tapes of
previous television reports, and evaluate records of past III studies.
. Investigation procedures: Develop a plan for flow monitoring and manhole
inspection criteria
. Field ~vestigation: Televising of sanitary lines, Manhole inspections on 100
manholes, and rainfallf1nfiltration monitoring as needed.
The existing trunk sewer system is adequate to serve the anticipated development over the
next five years. Any local extensions are anticipated to be paid for either through
development or assessment at the time of petition.
24